OSNews

Could be, but usually -noacpi fixes acpi boot problems (it also disables all acpi features).

If it were superior, people would use it over IE - especially given the obvious security problems alone.

Except for that little thing called lockin. Surely you've run across those sites that only work with IE? It's not because IE is superior, it's because MS created a non standards-compliant browser and shipped it with the OS most people use. That allowed web developers to be lazy, only certifying their site to work on IE, and in many cases using the IE only extensions. Lockin is what let the IE team cruise (to the point of not existing for a while), not any superiority of the browser.

Attempting to conflate popularity with quality is something that won't get you anywhere. Opera is an amazing browser, and does what it can against a product that comes with folks' OS and which has become (esp with 7) good enough.

"Surely you've run across those sites that only work with IE?"

You know, I haven't actually ran across such a site in a *long* time. I used a while back but not in recent times.
Are web designers getting their shit together or is it Firefox/Konqueror that works around these IE quirks? I dunno, but I sure don't run in to them as much as I used to, if at all.

Edited 2007-04-13 12:20

Both. There are more developers now building sites that are standards-driven and accessible than ever before.

Unfortunately, there are far more people creating web-sites than ever before, and the vast majority of new starts are still following circa-1996 tutorials or copying and pasting from the godawful code behind many major sites.

Firefox, et al, have had to put shims in place for compatibility, because not doing so would be a major barrier to adoption.

I don't run into these sites, normally. But recently, I tried to find and book a holiday online. Well, those sites suck, at least the dutch ones. 50% of em doesn't work at all in konqueror, and firefox doesn't do much better. Dunno if they even work in IE but I bet they do...

Except for that little thing called lockin. It's not because IE is superior, it's because MS created a non standards-compliant browser and shipped it with the OS most people use.

Erm... those are strawman arguments. Lockin doesn't exist when you can freely use other browsers (if you haven't noticed, you are even asked if you want to install some of these other browsers during a normal installation of IE7), and many of the 'standards' that are being created today are anything but standard.

Your getting modded down pretty fast for this comment, but I want to address it anyway.

First let me say that I haven't noticed the IE7 install asking if I want to install other browsers. Maybe it does, but I haven't seen it.

As for standards. Here's how I view what is standard and what is not. First of all the W3C and ECMA don't actually create standards. They create recommendations for a standard way of doing things. Not all recommendations are followed by those who choose to use them. I don't know of any browser who fully supports every W3C recommendation.

To me a standard is when more than one company (in the case of browsers) chooses to follow a given recommendation. It's not based on market share. However, I will concede that IE, in it's own way, has a coding standard. It's just a very poor one. IE7 is attempting to fix that by more closely following the W3C recommendations.

It's my opinion that browsers should not fix poorly coded web pages. We might have better web pages if browser developers elected to stop making browsers fix bad coding. However, that tends to acceptable behavior as not fixing bad code only makes the browser look inferior.

Almafeta, can you give me a screenshot of the setup program for Internet Explorer asking you if you wouldn't rather be installing Firefox or Opera? I'd really love to see that because it seems like you're confusing the selection of your search engines during the first run of IE with the idea of Microsoft actually letting people know that there are other browsers out there that have been doing what it thinks are innovative and revolutionary features of recent IE revisions for years.

Lockin with IE exists because IE is a flat-out requirement for many places, not the least of which are governmental and financial institutions. At the end of your comment you underline the main issue that's been around since the Netscape/IE war began, 'standards' being created by a company and supported only by their browser. Not to mention standards simply not being supported at all. It's obvious you're not a web developer and haven't had to deal with the lameness that is IE when so many other browsers just do things right.

Except for that little thing called lockin. Surely you've run across those sites that only work with IE? It's not because IE is superior

But at the time it took over the world, IE was the superior browser.

But at the time it took over the world, IE was the superior browser.

You're right. At the time IE took over it was the superior browser. Of course that hasn't been the case for years now yet they still own the browser "market". In fact even IE7 is inferior to most other browsers out there including Firefox, Konq, Opera, and Safari.

I take your points but how on earth my point of view fits into any of the -1 categories is beyond me. It just goes to show how stupid the comment rating feature of this site is.

"Saying that Opera is inferior to IE because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferior to McDonalds."

This is the best analogy I've seen in a long time. I'm gonna remember this.

So IE6's complete ignorance to the published agreed standards didn't make it inferior? The fact that IE7 still isn't on the ball doesn't make it inferior?

Inferior and popular are two very different things.

As a professional web developer, I'm long since past being surprised at people not knowing about the existence of anything besides IE—hell, most of them don't even know that it's IE, it's just ‘the Internet'. On that basis, it should be no surprise that IE's market share is so high: the only, quite frankly stunning, feat is that IE's market share is as low as it is when compared to Windows'.

Some people prefer IE over other browsers. I can tell you I've had a few tech savvy people who just didn't like Firefox or Opera.

I didn't use to like Opera and chose Firefox instead, but as of a few days ago I now using Opera instead of Firefox. I still keep Firefox around though, as some things don't display correctly in Opera.

As for IE7. My feelings are that Microsoft will make IE7+ as standard compliant as Firefox or other browsers. The reason is that many more sites are following the W3C's recommendation and those sites aren't working in IE. At some point even the dumbest user isn't going to keep blaming the websites especially when their smarter friends show them how well the site works in other browsers.

If IE becomes as standard compliant someday as the other browsers then I don't really feel that IE will lose much more ground to Firefox or the other browsers. The simple reason is that the majority of computer users don't really care what it is they are using as long as it works reasonably well.

The main reasons more people don't use Opera are they've never heard of it, or they have and are happy with their current browser (usually Firefox or Safari, but not so much Internet Explorer--IE users are usually computer illiterate and are the ones that have never heard of Opera). It has nothing to do with superiority.

If it were superior, people would use it over IE - especially given the obvious security problems alone.

Opera is objectively superior to Internet Explorer in nearly every aspect, from rendering engine (Opera 9.x passes ACID2; IE 7 doesn't even come close) to security (Opera has fewer issues on Securnia than Firefox and IE) to customizability (The toolbars are more customizable, and Opera has skins). The only thing where Internet Explorer takes the cake without a doubt is site compatibility, and that is not Opera's fault per se; Opera better adheres to web standards, but IE is so ubiquitous that some web designers make sites for IE and its quirks and shortcomings.

"So AFAIK, Linux claims to be Windows, too. Much alike old Opera claiming to be the - much inferior - Internet Explorer."

flanque, understand that Opera fake the browser identification by ID itself as IE 5. Much like Linux fake ACPI identification by ID itself to the BIOS as Windows...

So it is NOT about IE being inferior. It is about inverior IE version...

Kochise

It's definitely Microsoft's fault. There are two compilers available to generate AML (ACPI Machine Language) -- Intel's reference implementation, and Microsoft's. Guess what most manufacturers use to provide ACPI support in their BIOS?

Naturally, Microsoft-generated AML works fine with Microsoft's own ACPI driver.

This is a very severe problem, because on modern hardware ACPI is in charge of things like fan control and CPU throttling, which if not handled properly, could have disastrous consequences for your laptop.. as happened to mine:

http://hircus.wordpress.com/2007/04/14/hp-hp-lama-sabachthani/

One begins to see why HP has been known to refuse warranty claims if the customer admits to running Linux. Though it's entirely the fault of Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers. Unless the ACPI interpreter in Windows does not handle Intel-compiled AML properly, leaving manufacturers with no choice?

I'm never buying a computer with Windows pre-installed again, if only because of this. Give me bare-bones, Linux preinstalled, or a Mac. MS is not getting a single more dollar, even if I have to pay a bit more for that privilege (for a Dell, it's a reasonable $19)

>I'd be interested to know what that work actually is
"[product] isn't done until [competitor] won't run"

I'd also love to know what Bill meant when he said "if we do this work", and I'd be interested to know what that work actually is.

Me too.

ACPI establishes industry-standard interfaces enabling OS-directed configuration, power management, and thermal management of mobile, desktop, and server platforms. (emphasis added, from http://www.acpi.info )

OS Directed. How could Linux possibly benefit from something like that "without having to do the work"? Linux devs have to do the same work MS did: create a way for the OS to direct power, thermal, etc management, using a standard interface. It's hard to see that Gates has a point here, other than to throw up roadblocks for Linux. Unfortunately in the process he seems to have thrown up some roadblocks for Windows too. Where's the sense in that?

Maybe thinking and writing all the ACPI specifications ? It was co-developed by Microsoft.

So Linux can use the specification, but no Linux developers have participated to the writing of the specs.

Perhaps I am wrong, but it is how the statement can be read.

And? Public specifications are public. AFAIK, Microsoft didn't participated in the basic but major TCP/IP specifications, but benefit from it like everyone.

If they didn't want the ACPI specs to be public, they should have convince firmware and hardware partners to keep it closed. I dunno if they tried, but if they tried, they failed.

Public specifications are public specifications are public specifications. Don't blame the public for reading them, follow them, using them. Make your specifications private for that.

The guys who code ACPI for Linux are Intel guys (Intel actually has quite a few people working only for Linux-related things, it's very nice)

And Intel have participated into the ACPI development, probably even more than MS. So it's not that Linux hasn't done "anything".

Bingo!
OS directed means that "Windows" will do this part... but not actually Microsoft code, but drivers written by the hardware vendor and certified by Microsoft. Hence the double wammy. It's dependent on both Microsoft's documentation and the hardware vendor's physical chips + drivers. You can assume the task is long and costly for the VENDOR to do all the work so they will cut corners wherever possible to "just meet" the MS specs..i.e. the features may not exist at all!! but the company's driver might just lie to the OS to pass the cert and do something else.
Enter Linux people expecting that HARDWARE works as advertised on the spec sheet missing that little "*" that says some features enabled by drivers only.

"I'd also love to know what Bill meant when he said "if we do this work", and I'd be interested to know what that work actually is."

Most likely he meant working on defining/creating the standard together with HP, Toshiba, Intel and Phoenix.

It's nice to be modded down for seriously answering an on-topic question. Hurrah.

Actually, it was rewritten for Vista.

Yup, but still doesn't change the fact that they used it.

Personally, it's nice to see how they gave Linux so much 'love' even back in '99

With this kind of love, who needs enemies ))

And more to the point, Windows is implementing all kinds of open standards that MS never did any work on except extending them with their own proprietary shite.

Edited 2007-04-13 12:46

And even then... they break the open specifications making them useless .

It used to be, but is no longer, they rewrote it awhile ago. some of the utils are still derived from BSD, like FTP

Probably the same reasons lousey politicians are constantly rehired.

Or why companies with terrible track records socially/environmentally/quality wise are still succesful.

So many people just don't care...

Probably the same reasons lousey politicians are constantly rehired.

Or why companies with terrible track records socially/environmentally/quality wise are still succesful.

So many people just don't care...

That's it! We have our 2009 Windows brand!

"Windows Apathy - When did we ever care where you want to go today?"

It should have a co-release of Windows Emo - "How could you want to take me there?!"

*LOL*

Aawww... My stomach... damn you and those cramps

Sorry! 8D

Just to clarify something here when it comes to Cuba. If you remember back, it was Cuba that allowed the USSR to put nuclear weapons on the island that is just minutes from our border.

Is it fair to compare the Windows/ACPI/Linux situation to Cuba....I think not.

Dude, read up on your history! Cuba had to make a deal with the USSR because no one else was allowed to buy their main export, sugar. The main reason for this blockade in the first place was the USA. Also, the USSR wanted to offset the huge amount of missiles installed on European soil buy doing what the US had been doing for years, park some fat warheads in your enemy's backyard.

The USSR agreed to buy Cuban sugar in exchange for the installation of war heads. Because the US had set up a blockade, Cuba was not only forced to concede but was more than happy to. The fact remains that the US was playing the bully long before those missiles where installed but if you want to blame Cuba for what the rest of the world considers rabid antipathy on the part of the US, be my guest. Just don't be surprised when everybody else has a good laugh at your expense.

Hah, we've still got some of the damn things lying around Belgium. They're still on our soil illegally and our government is *still* denying it after all these years although it's a public secret they're there. Each year there's a demonstration at the army base of people coming to inspect for WMD's ( http://www.bomspotting.be/ ). They never get in though.
The distance Brussels-Moscow is about the same as Havanna-Washington BTW (around 2000km).

What I don't get is this rabid anti-Linux attitude from Gates and CO. It's like they're reaction out of pure fear or something.

Surely you must? Bill Gates (or whatever person or persons call(s) the shots at Microsoft) can't stand anyone but him making money. His attitude is he should be the only one to make it, and then he'll be "kind" enough to give the small change to everyone else.

Reminds me of the US's response to Cuba for the last 40 years, rabid antipathy towards something they really should not be all that bothered about. It's not like Cuba have any means of attacking the US and it's not like Linux is going to take over the Desktop anytime soon.

It's really not as much about Linux/Cuba as it is about competition/communism. After spending millions trying to bury other computer companies/Communist states in the ground, Microsoft/the US can't afford to let Linux/Cuba off the hook or people might get antsy.

Notice also that part of the tactic is that as long as you gibber on about intellectual property/capitalize your economy, they really couldn't care less about people like Novell/China sharing code/torturing its citizens.

I can understand being weary of a competitor but all this out and out warfare just makes MS look like a scared bully.

Look like? That's exactly what they have been all along.

Very true but I don't think it's in their interest to actually shout about it. Everybody knows you can't compete against a free product but trying to dirty the name of said product, although a time honored business practice, does end up backfiring in almost all the cases I have witnessed.

Notice that the Linux ACPI implementation is written and maintained by two or three or maybe even more Intel guys.

Intel was who invented ACPI. Still they can't write ACPI code that works 100% with the hardware made out there. Even Intel itself has released (at least in the past) chipsets etc. that weren't 100% ACPI compliant.

ACPI is a crappy standard, and vendors only test their hardware against Windows. That makes the Linu implementation harder.

There are two main ACPI "compilers": Intel's reference ACPI-CA used by the BSDs and Linux, and Microsoft's. The Intel compiler is very strict. Microsoft's is not. Since most motherboard manufacturer's target Windows, they use the MS ACPI compiler and can be very lax in their compliance. They'll still have an "ACPI-compliant" board ... but it only works with Windows.

The Intel implementation is available for anyone to use, while the MS one obviously isn't.

The Intel compiler is stricter about enforcing the specifications, but the Linux interpreter (almost entirely written by Intel) will correctly interpret almost all code produced by the Microsoft compiler. Be conservative in what you emit and liberal in what you accept, and so on. The use of the Microsoft compiler really isn't the problem in most cases.

"One can load a custom fixed DSDT table into the kernel at boot time [...] They have several fixed DSDT's available as well and there's plenty of documentation to learn the AML language for fixing your own table."

FreeBSD allows loading a custom dsdt since... version 5? Simply insert

acpi_dsdt_load="YES"
acpi_dsdt_type="acpi_dsdt"
acpi_dsdt_name="/boot/my_custom_dsdt.aml"

into /boot/loader.conf and test.

"I got my laptop with ACPI working that way "

I was lucky to disable ACPI loading on my "old" laptop and have APM running instead. Impossible today, because APM does not exist anymore.

I remember that, when I got my Toshiba Centrino laptop in 2003, I had to make a custom DSDT in order to have any sort of ACPI working in Linux.

Later on, I just have to add a workaround in the kernel. Guess what that was?

The trick was to change the Operating System string in the Linux acpi.h to be "Windows XX". As long as it's a 10-letter phrase with the starting word "Windows" on it the laptop would happy comply with the Linux ACPI implementation.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

If I were to put IE on my daughter's (9 years old) computer, her first question would be "Dad, where's Firefox?"